[Tschaggatta]

Persia have always been shown as the bad guys which represent the 'tyrannical hordes of asia'. Yet they had a grand civilization.

On the one hand it is true that western system tents to follow the bad-good manichaeism. This is easily understandable by the masses and easy to get propagandized.

On the other hand you are making the same mistake. There is not such generic term live civilization in order to describe societies of ancient times. The social/cultural/political/labor structures/organizations were much more complex. To referring to the past with terms like egyptian/indian/chinese civilization etc, is nothing more than adopting an orientalistic**** approach to history. And this is a dangerous path to follow.

**** as defined by Edward Said

[Doomhammer]

The omission of the Italians was by design. I pointed to the War between France and Austria in which the Italian's played a marginal role. The so-called Revolution in Italy, operationally speaking, was a fairly minor affair no bloodier than the Hungarian and Polish uprisings of 1848. Solferino was an entirely different affair...

[welcometohavoc]

As far as Greece and Persia go, I think alot of it has to do with modern politics and ideological identity. Iran (modern day Persia) is currently seen as a bad guy; a radical regime wanting to blow up the world and kill puppies and kittens, etc. I think that is one reason Persia has been portrayed badly in film. Another reason is ideology. We in the West get much of our philosophical and political identity from Ancient Greece, and its shaped our culture over the last 1,000 years. It hasn't been until recently (maybe the last 200 years) that people in the West have begun exploring Eastern ideas, and understandings of the world.

As for the other examples, I think history has shown that all empires engage in brutality and ruthlessness to maintain their domination. After all, an empire is the fruit of imperialism, and you can't have imperialism without conquest, be it economic, cultural, or military. The movies you use as examples are specifically shown from the viewpoint of the underdog. Braveheart is laced with historical inaccuracies, but it's message of freedom and independence does not necessarily mean the Scots are the good guys, just that they desire self-determination. The same goes for The Patriot, its sub-plot is about the American fight for independence from the British Empire, and again, does not necessarily mean that the Americans are good and the British are bad.

[Doomhammer]

After all, an empire is the fruit of imperialism, and you can't have imperialism without conquest, be it economic, cultural, or military. The movies you use as examples are specifically shown from the viewpoint of the underdog.

The point is that in practice there is a great bias, regardless of the capabilities of the actor, depending on civilizational affiliations and the utility of national narratives. There is certainly a hierarchy of preferences:

1. As you said, the underdog is popular in Western media. But it is even better when the underdog faces a civilizational "enemy" (the Orient, for example) as in the case of Greeks versus the Achaemenid Empire.

2. Also useful are underdogs who resist inta-civilizational antagonists. For example, the struggle of the Scots against the imperialist English evoke historical memories of resistance against the British Empire. The Patriot is another, even more pertinent, example. Political/ideological (Star Trek: The Federation [Murica and its allies] vs. The Klingon Empire [Soviet Union]) and economical also play into this. Consider every Cold War movie ever... though I concede that Russia could be considered a part of the same civilization (I certainly would say Russia is a sui generis case but arguable within the civilizational paradigm of the West).

3. "Barbarian" underdogs resisting evil components of Western/Anglo civilization. Even Avatar would qualify.

4. One of us synthesizing the wisdom of barbarian cultures to resist injustice: The Last Samurai is an example... though I concede that I like this particular movie.

5. Media in which "we" [West] are superior and need to overcome "other" enemies because of [our] 1) moral superiority 2) superiority of capabilities 3) because fuck the "others," that's why: Zulu (1960) is a good example. Tends to glorify/justify Western imperialism.

There are also movies that are actually somehwere between categories 1. and 2. but the nature of the program has the unintended consequence of glorifying the Imperialism of the "other": Star Wars! Duh! Darth Vader, the Empire, etc. Well, that's my take on it.

Perhaps one day Western media will grace us with sober, ideally, value-free, and engaging movies about other civilizations and their interactions with the West and other civilizations. Perhaps one day there will be a movie about the wars against Habsburg hegemony and the Franco-Ottoman alliance... or perhaps somethinga about the Warring States Period in China. Who knows?

But in all likeness, we're probably just going to have to sit through a lot of useless romantic comedies while waiting.

[Thompson_NCL]

Ancient Greece is considered to be a pillar of western civilization, so is it any wonder that many narratives have adopted a Greek perspective of Persia? It has nothing to to do with modern views of Iran.

[layman]

Plus the whole underdog thing. Holywood history loves the underdog.